Narrowband version of ROS still not legal below 222MHz without FCC approval

ROS illigal again

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11377/?nc=1

In mid-February, European amateurs first used a new, experimental digital mode known as ROS. On February 23, 2010 -- after FCC review of the original documents provided from the developer's Web site -- the FCC made the following statements on ROS:

"Section 97.305 is the rule that specifies where different emission types are allowed to be transmitted on different bands. 'ROS' is viewed as 'spread spectrum,' and the creator of the system describes it as that. We assume that he knows what he created. [Section] 97.305 authorizes spread spectrum emission types (defined in Section 97.3) to be transmitted by FCC licensed amateur stations at places we regulate communications only on 222-225 MHz and higher frequency amateur bands. European telecommunication regulatory authorities may authorize amateur stations in Europe to use SS on the HF bands, but this is of no concern to us. The Commission does not determine if a particular mode 'truly' represents spread spectrum as it is defined in the rules. The licensee of the station transmitting the emission is responsible for determining that the operation of the station complies with the rules. This would include determining the type of emission the station is transmitting and that the frequencies being used are authorized for that type of emission."

Since that initial FCC review, several Internet sites have reported a claim -- attributed to the FCC -- that the original statements made had been reconsidered and that the FCC view was now that "ROS cannot be viewed as Spread Spectrum and it would be encompassed within Section 97.309 (RTTY and data emissions codes)."

When queried about this new statement, the FCC's Consumer Assistance Office stated that "[T]he information contained on the ROS Web site was not provided by the FCC." They then reaffirmed the original statements that originated from the FCC's Wireless Bureau, which handles Amateur Radio rules for the US.

The ARRL supports -- as one of the basic purposes of Amateur Radio -- the experimentation and advancing the technical skills of operators. The development and use of any new mode is exciting to many amateurs, and the League encourage amateurs to experiment within the parameters of the rules; however, the ARRL also reminds US licensees that according to Section 97.307, spread spectrum communications are only permissible in the US on frequencies above 222 MHz.

 

Narrowband version of ROS

José Alberto Nieto Ros has introduced a new narrowband version of the well-known amateur radio digital mode ROS

ROS now has a mode which only uses 500 Hz bandwidth enabling it to be used in the narrow band mode section of the HF bands.

You can find out more about ROS at http://rosmodem.wordpress.com

ROS Sked
http://www.hamspots.net/ros
http://ham2ham.com/room307_ros.php

Digital Radio Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

RSGB Band Plans
http://www.rsgb.org/spectrumforum/bandplans/rsgb_band_plan_2010.htm






Get Southgate Amateur Radio News by Email

Don't wait all week for the news!
Amateur Radio News - updated daily - 365 days per year

 

Actually the top story on that page you linked to is a rant against the ARRL over their recent declaration that CHIP64 is illegal for HF, mostly an attack on ARRL's Dan Henderson.

The note does point out (correctly, apparently) that Virginia NTS system has been using CHIP64 on 80 meters for years, and this would be illegal if ARRL's Dan Henderson is correct.



The story about the 500 Hz wide ROS mode, which the OP was intended to highlight, is just a small blurb farther down the page, and no details are given.

 

What is the callsign of the developer?

 

Reads more like a temper tantrum to me. It's just another digital mode, another flavor of the day, and more new modes will come.

If we cant use it, so what, there's a bunch of others! Most of the digital stuff on HF is CW, RTTY and PSK-31 with Pactor ARQ for Winlink and the keyboard to keyboard on 14.313.

But his issue is with Part 97 of the rules, not with Dan, the ARRL or the USA, however he seem to want to personalize this issue of legality.

 

Hopefully the attention and discussion will turn back to the technical merits and advantages of the mode itself.

I think the behavior of all parties, official and private, has been disappointing.

More discussion, less uninformed snap decision making!

73, Bill

 

ROS not legal on HF for US Amateurs

The FCC has reaffirmed that ROS, at the self declaration of the author, is a spread spectrum mode and therefore is illegal below 220 MHz.

- Glenn W9IQ

 

Thanks for posting this comment. Yep, and a poor amateur who tried to get the author's false FCC declaration otherwise out on QRZ has since apologized (which I respect him immensely for doing).

The author is not a ham.

 

ROS not legal yet for USA hams

.


Public documentation is required for a digital mode, BEFORE a USA ham can legally use it.

Complete public documentation has not yet been provided for any of the ROS modes.

The "narrow" and "wide" (spread spectrum or not) versions of ROS are not legal for USA hams until the proper FCC process is completed.







.

 

Something I did notice when looking at the list of frequencies which were recommended for using ROS was 24.920 the PSK frequency and 28.120 another PSK frequency. Considering that 10 metres is the widest set of frequencies on HF, why did somebody decide the ONE frequency used for PSK activity would be OK ? And the same comment applies to 12 metres.

G0GQK

 

His response in another case, was "do you own that frequency?"

Obviously, he is not concerned about things like that, and not being a ham, he doesn't understand the culture.

 

ROS designer intentionally advocating harmful interference

To G0GQK,

In spite of much good advice to the ROS creator by qualified hams, he has advocated frequencies for ROS use which cause harmful interference to many nets and existing QSOs.

He has disregarded common active frequencies, international band plans, and frequency coordination to the extent that many wonder if it is his actual intention to disrupt and interfere with ongoing communications. Of course, since he is not a ham, he doesn't care how much harmful interference he causes. He has also voiced his contempt in rather harsh language.

Who knows what spyware or trojan may lurk inside his software? He has shown already that he is not to be trusted.

 

Bonnie, you and I are in complete agreement on this point. I believe this is (or should be) the case for every mode and protocol used on amateur frequencies.

I have noticed that the ROS author has even suggested frequencies for ROS that are already in use by several other parties, including your own ALE project. I think this shows us a lack of understanding (on the author's part) of the way amateur radio works, the way propagation works on HF, and the impact that moving 'semi-permanent' services on top of other 'semi-permanent' services can have.

 

Ros use in HF band

Beleive I seen a key word there EX SPIR A MEN TALL And two versions HF and EME, Hum? EX SPER MIN TOL? HUM?

 

Unfortuneatly there are quite a few U.S. hams using this mode on 14.102 Mhz. I am sure also on a number of the other ROS website documented frequencies. Hopefully they realize and discontinue its use until this is approved.

JR